Head first
Many governing bodies call on the services of headhunters to help with the appointment of headteachers. Russell Speirs reveals the findings from a new survey to find out about candidates’ views of dealing with agencies
It has long been known, and more recently proven, that the single most important factor determining the success of a school is its leader. It falls to a school’s governors to choose the best one; it is the single biggest responsibility that governors bear. No wonder then, in an increasingly competitive market, that independent school governing bodies have been turning more and more to executive search companies to assist with the appointment of heads.
This trend has been accompanied by a growing professionalisation of HR management in schools and, of course, a more complicated legal minefield for potential employers.
But what do the candidates think of the agencies? What, from their perspective, are the advantages and disadvantages of applying for a post which is being handled by a third party? And what can these firms, and the governors who employ them, learn from candidates’ experience? A recent survey was launched to answer these questions.
Methodology and sample
Just under 200 heads and senior staff at independent schools were asked to complete a short questionnaire in February 2011. All the recipients had attended training courses run for HMC and GSA aimed at serving heads, new heads or aspiring heads.
In total, 70 people responded, 30 of whom were heads at the time of the survey. The majority of the respondents (60 per cent) had applied for between one and five headships in the previous three years. All of them worked at senior or all-through schools.
Ten of the 70 respondents had only applied for headship vacancies that had been managed inhouse by a school’s governing body, administered through the clerk or PA to the incumbent head. Eleven respondents only had experience of applying for posts handled by an executive search and selection agency. The majority, 49 respondents, had applied for headships through both routes.
Summary of main findings
Questions were put to the candidates about the relative merits of an inhouse process and an agency process. Let us look first at three of the more general questions.
Candidates were evenly split in terms of which approach they thought was better overall, and this was the case whether they had experienced the inhouse approach, agency or both. However, they were clearly not against the agency approach in principle.
Tellingly, the respondents were more inclined towards using an agency if they were governors of a school. And another question in the survey, “On balance, do you think more schools should use an agency?” generated a similar tone of response, with those replying “yes” outnumbering the others 37 to 28.
On the more specific issues, candidates were generally more in favour of governors engaging the help of an agency than trying to manage the process inhouse.
Interpreting the findings
Of course, the respondents’ version of events is only one side of the story and not the most important side, either. The key question to answer is not whether the candidates felt positively about the experience, but whether the best candidate was ultimately selected. Having said that, the two can go hand in hand, as this respondent illustrates: “I was so unimpressed by the agency that I withdrew from the final interview (I believe a second candidate did too).”
Such an outcome would appear to be rare, however, since most candidates are much more interested in the job and the school than the quality of the application process. In many cases, however, respondents felt that the governors would benefit from the support of outside experts: “Governors know their school, but from a distance. They have never done the job of head, so candidates find themselves talking to a group of people who think they know what they want but who don’t necessarily understand the real challenges day to day. Their questions can betray this.”
The way in which interviews are managed can vary enormously. Agencies can help ensure (but by no means guarantee) that the assessment of candidates is managed professionally and that it generates fresh and pertinent insights into candidates’ suitability. In extreme cases, governors have not managed this well: “I think there are unhelpful paradigms about interviewing still out there which can surface when they are entirely inhouse affairs – for example, governors who assume that a combative, confrontational approach is the best or only approach.”
Agencies were preferred by many candidates because, at their best:
• they can encourage strong candidates to apply who might not have thought of applying;
• they give better advice to candidates as to their suitability and whether or not they should apply;
• they help candidates prepare better for the application process by enabling a more frank exchange of information and views;
• they provide more constructive feedback to candidates;
• time spent applying through an agency is not lost, because it can count for other vacancies which may arise in the future;
• they bring objectivity to the process; and
• above all, they have much more experience than governors and are experts in the field, ensuring a more robust and successful process all round.
On the other hand
Counterbalancing these positive views, however, were three main criticisms of the approach of recruitment agencies. One widespread complaint was that, on occasions, agencies did not know the schools sufficiently well to advise candidates or carry out the initial assessment of candidates. A typical comment in this respect was: “Agencies often know little about the school... Agencies will not have the indepth knowledge of the school which is needed to make an informed decision.”
Various reasons were put forward: agencies either did not take the time to get to know the school (or governors did not allow enough time for this) or the agency used “professional headhunters figure-headed by ancient doyens/doyennes from a distant era of education”. Being in touch with today’s schools and the people in them was vital.
Dull approach
As a consequence, perhaps, another quite frequent criticism emerged: that the process was “depersonalised” and that agencies were “bland and corporate in the way they sell the school”.
Finally, there was the criticism that agencies sometimes encouraged people to apply for positions “simply because the agency wants to present a strong list”, even if a candidate on that list is not suitable.
Overall conclusions
Despite misgivings among some of the candidates, the majority view is that using a good executive search and selection agency is mostly preferable to managing the process inhouse.
If the agency knows the school well and provides a personalised advisory service to the candidates, then there is a good chance that the outcome will be a positive one.
Russell Speirs is the founder of RSAppointments, an arm of RSAcademics. Russell can be contacted on 01572 821306 or via russell@rsacademics.co.uk.
Return to Recruitment
